||June 12, 1980; Revised September 14, 1984; Revised November 19, 1987; Revised December 3, 1992; Revised April 8, 1993; Revised December 2, 1993; Revised April 6, 1995; Revised April 10, 1997; Revised April 12, 2001; Revised June 14, 2005; Revised April 6, 2007; Revised September 17, 2009; Revised December 10, 2009; Revised September 26, 2013; Revised December 4, 2014 (eff. 1/1/15)|
- Board of Visitors Policy
An annual evaluation of the performance of all faculty members will be conducted
in order that they may receive full credit and review for their contributions
to the University and to their disciplines. The three criteria on which
this evaluation will be based are teaching, research, and service.
The initial responsibility for evaluation of faculty performance rests
with the chair, on the basis of evidence supplied by the faculty member
or collected elsewhere. The faculty member shall be given a copy of the
chair's evaluation and may submit comments. Both the chair's
evaluation and the faculty member's comments are submitted to the
dean, who has the final responsibility for evaluation of faculty. A copy
of the dean's evaluation should be sent to the faculty member in a timely fashion.
- Procedures for Evaluation of Faculty
- Annual Evaluation
In order to insure that all relevant information is included in the
evaluation, all faculty members are required to submit once a year a faculty
information sheet in which they detail the evidence in support of their
performance in teaching, research, and service, together with whatever
other information they wish to be taken into consideration by the chair
and dean in the evaluation. These evaluations will be based on a faculty information sheet, student evaluations of teaching, up-to-date curricula vitae, peer evaluation of course portfolios, and such other information as the faculty or the chair wishes to include. The evaluations will comment on the performance of the faculty member in teaching, research and service and on progress toward meeting individual goals resulting from previous evaluations.
- Evaluation Process
The chair, using the faculty information sheet and whatever other information
is obtainable, evaluates the performance of the faculty member during
the previous year and writes up the evaluation into a formal statement
of the contributions of the faculty member to the department, college,
and University. In the case of chairs, these evaluations are written by
the dean. Since evaluation of performance is one of the essential factors
in determinations concerning tenure, promotion, reappointment, and salary
increments, the chair and dean should make every effort to insure that
the evaluations are clear, honest, and genuinely evaluative. A listing
of facts without interpretation is helpful neither to the faculty member
nor to the committees concerning personnel decisions.
The chair and the dean will interpret
the cumulative record of annual evaluations along with the performance
of the faculty member during the previous year (see section 11.B.1),
so that a clear picture of positive contributions and any deficiencies
will emerge. An in-depth evaluation will be conducted if requested by
the faculty member, the chair, or the dean. In no case will a faculty
member be considered for promotion or other major personnel decision unless an in-depth evaluation, as described in the policies on Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness, Evaluation of Scholarly Activity and Research, and Evaluation of Service, has been conducted in the previous twelve
- The dean evaluates in writing the performance of the faculty member
endorsing the evaluation of the chair; or
indicating areas in which the dean's evaluation differs from
that of the chair.
After completing the evaluation of the faculty member's activities,
the chair gives the faculty member a copy of the evaluation and discusses
it with the faculty member. At this time, the faculty member and chair
agree on a written set of goals for the coming year. If appropriate, the
chair should make suggestions for improvement and give the faculty member
a clear idea of ways in which the performance might be improved in future
Where deficiencies are noted, the chair should work with the faculty
member to develop a plan to address the deficiencies and either provide
resources to implement the plan, if necessary, or if resources are not
available in the department recommend to the dean and provost and vice
president for academic affairs that such resources are needed. If a pattern
of deficiency in the performance of a tenured faculty member is documented
from the cumulative annual evaluations, for a period of at least two years,
the chair or dean shall call for an in-depth evaluation of the faculty
member and may conduct a post-tenure review, as described in the Policy and Procedures on Post-Tenure Review. The chair should take particular
care in the counseling of non-tenured faculty members who are working
toward the criteria for tenure.
Copies of the faculty information sheets, the chair's evaluation,
the faculty member's comments, and the dean's evaluation are
retained for the record in the faculty member's personnel file maintained
in the dean's office.
An annual evaluation is not required in the year a candidate is evaluated for tenure or for promotion to the rank of professor.
- Appeal of Unfavorable Evaluations
Any faculty member who is dissatisfied with the personal evaluation prepared by the chair may present in writing additional comments or evidence to the chair and to the dean.
Any faculty member who is dissatisfied with the personal evaluation prepared by the dean may present in writing additional comments or evidence to the dean and to the provost and vice president for academic affairs.
- Criteria for Evaluation
- All faculty members will be evaluated on the basis of teaching, research,
and service. The weighting of these three areas will vary from one faculty
member to another depending upon the needs of the department and the particular
accountability of the individual faculty member in contributing toward
the fulfillment of these needs.
Teaching - It is the responsibility of the chair to evaluate the
information that is available concerning teaching. (For a detailed
discussion on evaluation of teaching, see the University Policy
on the Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness.)
Scholarly Activity and Research - It is the responsibility of the
chair to evaluate the quality of the scholarly activity and research
of the faculty member (a mere listing of publications or grants does
not constitute evaluation). Each department should establish, with
the approval of the dean and the provost and vice president for academic
affairs, a clear statement of the criteria for evaluating scholarly
activity and research in that department. These criteria should take
into consideration both the mission of the department and the nature
of the scholarly activity and research within the discipline or
related disciplines and in appropriate interdisciplinary venues.
The evaluation of scholarly activity and research in a department
should be based on these criteria. In evaluation, emphasis should be
placed on quality, not just quantity. See the Policy on Evaluation of
Scholarly Activity and Research for more detailed information.
Service - The category of professional service is more difficult
to define than teaching or research, but deserves the same kind of
rigorous evaluation and positive credit given to teaching and scholarly
activities. The chair has the responsibility to seek out methods
of evaluating quality of professional service, not merely to list
the activities. The task is sometimes complicated by the
fact that much professional service takes place outside the department. Ideally,
each faculty member should exercise their professional expertise in all three
areas of department, college and University service, community engagement,
and service to the discipline. Where individual faculty members may be expected
by the chair to play different roles, those specific roles should
be defined and understood. In all cases, service should be judged
on the basis of quality and effectiveness, not just quantity. When distance education
technologies are used for providing service, evaluations should include
items specific to these delivery formats. See the Policy on Evaluation of Service for detailed information.
Departmental, college, and University service
Community engagement is defined as the application of a faculty member's
professional skills to engage with the external community in a manner
that both assists the community and is consistent with fulfillment of the University's mission. Community engagement in religious,
political, or social organizations (although meritorious
in itself) is not relevant to the faculty member's professional
Service to the discipline
- Pre-Tenure Review
The concept of a major review of faculty performance is intended to serve
the purpose of giving the faculty member a clear indication of progress
toward tenure and to offer constructive suggestions for self-improvement.
Non-tenured faculty members, without prior teaching service credit
toward tenure, who are in their third year of probationary service
at Old Dominion University will receive a major faculty review. This
review will be conducted by the dean and will begin in the spring of
the third calendar year of faculty service (fall of the third calendar year
of service for faculty hired mid-year). The review will include a
meeting with the faculty member and chair. The review process, conducted
by the department promotion and tenure committee, department chair,
college promotion and tenure committee, and dean, will include an in-depth evaluation of
teaching effectiveness, scholarly works, grant and contract efforts,
and other professional activities. An evaluation report emphasizing the
long-range impact of the faculty member on the University should be submitted
to the provost and vice president for academic affairs by May 1
(December 1 for faculty hired mid-year) following the completion of the review at the college level with a copy provided to the faculty member at all evaluation levels. It is important that the review extend beyond certifying
adequate teaching performance and focus on creative ability, productivity,
and potential to excel.
In situations where a faculty member receives one or two years of credit
toward tenure, the review process will be conducted during the second year
of service at Old Dominion University, but no sooner than 12 months after initial appointment.